Thursday, October 26, 2006
Having District 300 Pick Up Early Retirement Pension Costs Teacher Contract Hold Up
Remember the “such a deal” pension program that the General Assembly passed at the behest of the Illinois Education Association (really a union)?
Well, the extraordinary raises given to teachers and administrators during the last four years of their employment, upon which their retirement pensions were based, led to reform of a sort.
That made the late 40 and 50-something leaders of teachers unions throughout the state none too happy.
One I talked to was really angry.
It was one of those entitlement things.
If teachers my age (64) had been able to retire with a really good monthly check from the Downstate Teachers Retirement Fund at age 52, why shouldn’t they still be able to do so?
So, now I see confirmation that the Carpentersville District 300 teachers are not dissatisfied with their 4-year, 17.4% salary increase. (Who could be upset with that?)
Chicago Tribune reporter Tim Kane got local union president Kolleen Hanetho to admit that the sticking point is early retirement. Here’s the details:
The previous law allowed local school districts to dump the enormous pension burden on all the state’s taxpayers.
Here’s what the District 300 press release revealed about the issue:
= = = = =
Top left is LEAD 300 union president Kolleen Hanetho.
Bottom is District 300 Superintendent Ken Arndt, the contact person for the Saturday press release.
Well, the extraordinary raises given to teachers and administrators during the last four years of their employment, upon which their retirement pensions were based, led to reform of a sort.
That made the late 40 and 50-something leaders of teachers unions throughout the state none too happy.
One I talked to was really angry.
It was one of those entitlement things.
If teachers my age (64) had been able to retire with a really good monthly check from the Downstate Teachers Retirement Fund at age 52, why shouldn’t they still be able to do so?
So, now I see confirmation that the Carpentersville District 300 teachers are not dissatisfied with their 4-year, 17.4% salary increase. (Who could be upset with that?)
Chicago Tribune reporter Tim Kane got local union president Kolleen Hanetho to admit that the sticking point is early retirement. Here’s the details:"She said teachers who retire before age 60, or at 55 if they have 35 years’ service, are penalized under a new state law.As I suggested above, entitlements die hard.
"Hanetho said that the union wants a way to keep early retirement free of financial penalties to teachers or the school district."
The previous law allowed local school districts to dump the enormous pension burden on all the state’s taxpayers.
Here’s what the District 300 press release revealed about the issue:The national context includes a society increasingly intolerant of the disparities between public and private sector pay and benefits. The board is asking LEAD members to keep an open mind about its shift away from a traditional, and some would say outdated, compensation package to one that is both competitive and innovative.I wonder what the teachers have in mind that this teacher union-dominated school board can’t swallow.
= = = = =
Top left is LEAD 300 union president Kolleen Hanetho.
Bottom is District 300 Superintendent Ken Arndt, the contact person for the Saturday press release.
Comments:
<< Home
Interesting! Very Interesting!
Ummmm, so, why am I still waiting for OTHER shoes to drop about what the union is demanding/expecting/asking for?
This can't be the only thing between the ink and the paper.
In any case, isn't it interesting how things dribble out from both sides and no one is screaming "foul"?
I guess it's only "foul" if someone beats you to the release/punch or disagrees on what can be released by who ? whom.
Ummmm, so, why am I still waiting for OTHER shoes to drop about what the union is demanding/expecting/asking for?
This can't be the only thing between the ink and the paper.
In any case, isn't it interesting how things dribble out from both sides and no one is screaming "foul"?
I guess it's only "foul" if someone beats you to the release/punch or disagrees on what can be released by who ? whom.
The law that passed not too long ago, I think it was SB0027 / PA94-004, was the one that said local school districts were on the hook for anything that exceeded a 6% increase in the years that determined a teacher's pension. I.e. if they got a 10-10-10 or 20-20 deal, the district would have to fund TRS with a one time payment to make up for actuarially calculated total lifetime costs of any increase over 6%.
So some districts now have teacher contracts with retirement packages that grant "only" 6% increases in the final, pension-determining years of a teacher's career. The IEA (state teacher union) figured out how to get around that though. First, they got the state legislators they own to pass SB0049 which pokes all sorts of holes into what's included in the 6%. Then the IEA suggested that districts should start granting "post-retirement lump sum payment bonuses", that aren't subject to the 6% rule. So if a teacher can only get 6% in their last few years, at least they'll get a big pile of money the day after the 6% rule no longer applies.
Early Retirement Option (ERO) is somewhat different. It basically allows a teacher who has 20 years of service and will be at least 55 by the day they retire to retire between ages 55 and 60. The rub is, teachers taking ERO have to pay a penalty of 11.5% of their final years' salary for every year old they are under 60, or any years of creditable service they have less than 35. And the district pays 23.5% of the teacher's final year salary for every year the employee is under 60, unless the employee has 35 years of service.
Districts are able to limit the number of teachers that take ERO to 10% of eligible teachers if they so choose. But they can't stop teachers from taking ERO. Payment of the "employee share" is another issue the IEA recommends for debate. I'm not quite sure why the employer would pay the employee share (I would think there's a reason it's called the "employee" share), but that's sometimes the way in the parallel universe of government schools.
So some districts now have teacher contracts with retirement packages that grant "only" 6% increases in the final, pension-determining years of a teacher's career. The IEA (state teacher union) figured out how to get around that though. First, they got the state legislators they own to pass SB0049 which pokes all sorts of holes into what's included in the 6%. Then the IEA suggested that districts should start granting "post-retirement lump sum payment bonuses", that aren't subject to the 6% rule. So if a teacher can only get 6% in their last few years, at least they'll get a big pile of money the day after the 6% rule no longer applies.
Early Retirement Option (ERO) is somewhat different. It basically allows a teacher who has 20 years of service and will be at least 55 by the day they retire to retire between ages 55 and 60. The rub is, teachers taking ERO have to pay a penalty of 11.5% of their final years' salary for every year old they are under 60, or any years of creditable service they have less than 35. And the district pays 23.5% of the teacher's final year salary for every year the employee is under 60, unless the employee has 35 years of service.
Districts are able to limit the number of teachers that take ERO to 10% of eligible teachers if they so choose. But they can't stop teachers from taking ERO. Payment of the "employee share" is another issue the IEA recommends for debate. I'm not quite sure why the employer would pay the employee share (I would think there's a reason it's called the "employee" share), but that's sometimes the way in the parallel universe of government schools.
Where are the lawyers who are supposed to protect the taxpayers?
If the union and school industry are so easily able to dance around the laws as seems to be the case in the post from Chris - why can't taxpayers dance around the laws that keep us tied to bad teachers (tenure)?
Or get "us" out of contracts with administrators (without expensive penalties) who are underperforming or pushing spending beyond available funds?
Or get "us" refunds from school industry consultants who turn in a lousy performance?
To the lawyers who could actually help the taxpayers - step up to the plate. We are no longer in a world of Mayberry towns. Schools are BIG businesses and the businesses are being paid for by taxpayers - and that includes the Littlest Taxpayers with the shrinking piggybanks and less than excellent educations that aren't competitive to those in other places on the planet.
If the union and school industry are so easily able to dance around the laws as seems to be the case in the post from Chris - why can't taxpayers dance around the laws that keep us tied to bad teachers (tenure)?
Or get "us" out of contracts with administrators (without expensive penalties) who are underperforming or pushing spending beyond available funds?
Or get "us" refunds from school industry consultants who turn in a lousy performance?
To the lawyers who could actually help the taxpayers - step up to the plate. We are no longer in a world of Mayberry towns. Schools are BIG businesses and the businesses are being paid for by taxpayers - and that includes the Littlest Taxpayers with the shrinking piggybanks and less than excellent educations that aren't competitive to those in other places on the planet.
I'm afraid you will be waiting a long, long time if you expect an army of lawyers to swoop in and "protect" the public from the concerns you have expressed. That's not meant to malign the legal profession, it's just that it isn't the responsibility of lawyers to "protect" anyone except in matters involving alleged criminal behavior.
If you object to those that "dance around the laws" don't waste any energy criticizing someone that's figured out how to manuever within the constraints of the law to get what they want. Work to change the law.
If you disagree with those that exectue contracts you find objectionable or that commission professionals to advise and counsel them in their responsibilities don't look for an attorney to meter out punishment.
Instead of handing off the matter to the legal community get behind representatives that share your positions and work to persuade others to support your interests. Send people to Washingotn and Springfield at every level that agree with you and change the process from the inside out.
If you can't find anybody that suits you then get up from behind your keyboard, grab a nominating petition and get busy.
If you object to those that "dance around the laws" don't waste any energy criticizing someone that's figured out how to manuever within the constraints of the law to get what they want. Work to change the law.
If you disagree with those that exectue contracts you find objectionable or that commission professionals to advise and counsel them in their responsibilities don't look for an attorney to meter out punishment.
Instead of handing off the matter to the legal community get behind representatives that share your positions and work to persuade others to support your interests. Send people to Washingotn and Springfield at every level that agree with you and change the process from the inside out.
If you can't find anybody that suits you then get up from behind your keyboard, grab a nominating petition and get busy.
Hello to sewer urchin: (interesting name)
A simple fyi - The act of posting on a blog doesn't mean a person isn't already involved in working to correct things through other channels.
My opinion of most (not all)incumbents is that they have sold out the very people they promised to represent. Yes, I'm looking for new blood in Springfield and in Washington.
With regard to lawyers actually working on behalf of the taxpayers to protect them from financial or educational abuses/failures perpetrated by the school industry - I'm probably one of those rare people who doesn't make lawyer jokes. I believe in their ability to protect not only the children in their homes and other members of their own families but also to take the higher ground and help others. Yes, regular people do need champions.
The same goes for CEOs - if they are able to run successful corporations, they, too, can jump in and make education better with financial wisdom, new ideas, etc.
Our schools are still teaching in "old think" and under the control of "old power" protectors of the status quo. (Note: old is not intended to address human age.)
Our kids deserve better.
Here's to keeping what worked, tossing what didn't, and the hope that, one day, our communities won't be divided by the issues we face today.
Post a Comment
A simple fyi - The act of posting on a blog doesn't mean a person isn't already involved in working to correct things through other channels.
My opinion of most (not all)incumbents is that they have sold out the very people they promised to represent. Yes, I'm looking for new blood in Springfield and in Washington.
With regard to lawyers actually working on behalf of the taxpayers to protect them from financial or educational abuses/failures perpetrated by the school industry - I'm probably one of those rare people who doesn't make lawyer jokes. I believe in their ability to protect not only the children in their homes and other members of their own families but also to take the higher ground and help others. Yes, regular people do need champions.
The same goes for CEOs - if they are able to run successful corporations, they, too, can jump in and make education better with financial wisdom, new ideas, etc.
Our schools are still teaching in "old think" and under the control of "old power" protectors of the status quo. (Note: old is not intended to address human age.)
Our kids deserve better.
Here's to keeping what worked, tossing what didn't, and the hope that, one day, our communities won't be divided by the issues we face today.
<< Home
